BOE To Cut Classroom Funding, But Keeps Extra $6.5 Million for Themselves (edit this)

15 Responses to “BOE To Cut Classroom Funding, But Keeps Extra $6.5 Million for Themselves”

1. Nakayama Says:
   January 23rd, 2008 at 9:31 am e

   Thanks, Kim.

   “But in recent years, the Board of Education has used additional funds for central administration offices, including its own offices.”

   This is how government bureaucracies function: to protect their own members, the public good and public services be damned.

   When private companies face financial problems, the first thing they do is cut back-office staff. For public agencies, this is the last thing that gets cut. Meaning, in this case, that teachers, the front-line warriors working to educate our kids, must suffer the brunt of the damages, as the bureaucrats feather their own beds.

   This is also why private companies are almost always more efficient than public agencies, despite what Tim Redmond at the Guardian thinks.

2. Caroline Says:
   January 23rd, 2008 at 11:06 am e

   I don’t have inside understanding of what’s going on with these allocations. But I have to say that Kim doesn’t either, and has a history of some wild misunderstandings in her past attempts to interpret budgets.

   So Nakayama and everyone else, take it with a HUGE grain of salt.

   Kim, I do appreciate your providing the information, but you have repeatedly shown that you don’t have the grasp or background to interpret it, so IMHO you should recognize that and stop getting all indignant about expenditures that you probably don’t even begin to understand. You have out-Emily Litellad Emily Litella (”Never mind!”) long since with your past interpretations.

   Just to give one example that I recall — you voiced extreme outrage a few years ago when you claimed to have discovered a $400,000 administrator on the budget. It turned out to be the line item for something like eight part-time parent liaisons at STAR (low-performing) schools.

3. Nakayama Says:
   January 23rd, 2008 at 12:52 pm e

   Caroline,

   Well, Kim highlighted these examples of bureaucratic fat in her other post:

   “For 07-08, the Board of Education also approved 11 additional positions funded by unrestricted funds and 126 additional positions funded by restricted funds for its central offices.”

   The central office should not be growing while the student population in SFUSD is shrinking. If these positions are meant to compensate for cuts elsewhere, perhaps they are needed. But have you seen any evidence that the bureaucratic maze at Franklin St is cutting its numbers or getting any smaller? I haven’t.

4. Nakayama Says:
   January 23rd, 2008 at 1:07 pm e

   When the Los Angeles Unified School District went bankrupt, it was pointed out that two of the main reasons were a huge jump in the back-office staff to teacher ratio over the years, and burgeoning pension costs.

   Any time the school district wants to increase the number of thumb-twiddling back-office workers at its central offices, it should highlight specifically where it plans to cut costs elsewhere (that is, trim other dead wood in its back offices).

   How often have you heard principals complain that they can’t get anything done through the central offices, that they constantly bump into bureaucratic stone-walling?

   How many times have you read on the PPS user group site about the bumbling idiots who run the district website for individual schools?

   About parents who have given up on dealing with the central office entirely?

5. Caroline Says:
   January 23rd, 2008 at 3:08 pm e

   Nakayama, I know that the central office staff has shrunk because of the area I work with most closely — Student Nutrition. That central office staff has shrunk far more than the student population it serves, with one person doing the work that three or four used to do. And the layer above it has shrunk too over the years. At one recent point the SFUSD real estate guy was overseeing Student Nutrition, an area about which he knew absolutely zero, because of top management consolidations — additional jobs kept being gathered into his.

   I’m still not defending adding to central office staff, and I recognize that SFUSD’s staff is often its own worst enemy.

   I’m just saying that Kim’s accounts have a history of inaccuracy because she really doesn’t (or hasn’t in the past) have a clue how to read the budget. Again, note that she got all outraged a couple years ago claiming that there was a $400,000 CENTRAL OFFICE position in the budget, which turned out to be EIGHT valuable part-time positions AT SCHOOL SITES. (”Never mind!”) So make sure it’s accurate before you spend energy getting outraged.

   In addition, of course, there has been an ongoing kvetch from the Green/Progressives and the Bay Guardian when the SFUSD central office staff doesn’t leap instantly to provide them with every piece of paperwork they demand. Well, meeting that demand requires more central office staff. So they can’t really have it both ways.

6. Nestwife Says:
   January 24th, 2008 at 9:13 am e

   Are you folks aware that school custodians (formerly known as janitors) appear in the budget as central office staff, because they are paid not out of each school’s budget but rather from the central office? I believe that last year, Prop H funds were allocated for more custodians, so it would make sense that these would show up in the budget as more central office workers.

7. Caroline Says:
   January 24th, 2008 at 3:38 pm e

   I’d forgotten that myself — that custodians show up as central office staff — but it’s exactly the kind of thing I mean.

8. Robert Says:
   January 24th, 2008 at 5:14 pm e

   Thanks for clarifying that about the custodians. From speaking to members, they are woefully understaffed.

9. Lorraine Says:
   January 24th, 2008 at 9:53 pm e

   I believe school security staff also come out of the central office budget and increased last year. Also, all special education spending is a central office allocation.

   To run a district of 55,000+ kids, you need central staff and people need tools (i.e. technology) to do their jobs. It’s been gutted over many years. If you talk to ANYONE from any other high functioning school district, you’ll know we don’t have the basics - and they can’t support our site needs. We are below the California average % of central office spending in our budget. We need top notch visionaries and managers if to hope to achieve more -and in SF, there is no reason we should not be the top in the nation.
   (That said, I certainly won’t fall on a sword over some of the mid-level staff I encounter. But I expect new leadership is currently evaluating all that as we speak.)

   But you need managers and leaders to make change - which is why Carlos Garcia hired Tony Smith. Mr. Smith has an impressive track record from this time as Superintendent of Emeryville, and is bringing new credibility to SFUSD. As an example, I’ve had more than one local foundation leader tell me that now that he is here, they will consider funding SFUSD again. (Recent antics between the BOE and former Superintendent Ackerman caused them to drop us.)

   Kim, I think you are being myopic about this and itching for a ‘gotcha’. If you’ve ever run an organization or business, you know that good leaders get you good results and that you do have to invest in this.

   I’m planning to give the new leadership a chance, see their long-term plan and goals (being unveiled this month, I’m told) and hold them accountable for the results they commit to over the coming years (administration AND Board of Ed).

10. kimknox Says:
    January 25th, 2008 at 12:51 pm e

    I am sorry, Lorraine. But year after year, I keep seeing more top administrators being hired and I noticed that the Local 1021 staff’s salaries are cut.

    If there is to be cuts to the classroom, there needs to be cuts to the administration. If they are going to close schools due to declining enrollment, then they shouldn’t be hiring a Deputy Superintendent and an additional Assistant Superintendent. Nor should they be hiring more people for the Chief Facilities Division’s Office-at the expense of janitors who were moved from unrestricted general fund to the Prop H funds (which has a limited life).

    When schools who are increasing in enrollment get their budgets cut and the new administration is saying that there will be more cuts to nutrition, transportation, janitors and the classroom, I can’t allow them to add more senior staff without a protest.

    Robert, you are right. Janitors are understaffed and overworked. And yet, the district is moving their salaries to less reliable sources of restricted funds-which makes them more vulnerable to layoff.

11. Caroline Says:
    January 25th, 2008 at 5:23 pm e

    Kim, I think your entire string of comments, once you discovered that the “central office staff” figure that horrified you actually refers to such employees as custodial staff, is from the non-reality-based community. That’s the kindest way I can put it.

12. Lorraine Says:
    January 25th, 2008 at 7:33 pm e

    To Roberts’ point above, ALL areas in SFUSD are woefully understaffed.

    I’m waiting to hear tomorrow more about the budget at the SSC Summit to hear the budget presentations to better inform my own opinions on this. I’ll grant you that everyone, not just schools, need to take the hit. However, you should recognize that all the recent changes/hires at central office happened BEFORE we knew what the state budget was going to be (and the BOE approved all hires.) I’m sure everything is on the table for examination (i.e. the axe.)

    I want to reiterate that we don’t have a fat central office administration in SFUSD and we’ve been flying with little leadership at the helm across all fronts. I was happy to see that there was some new leadership to make those BELOW them at 555 more accountable*. (Can we agree on that?)

    *I’m not referring to teachers or principals in this particular instance.

13. Nakayama Says:
    January 26th, 2008 at 2:14 pm e

    Lorraine,

    Anywhere we can find stats on this:

    “We are below the California average % of central office spending in our budget.”

    And even more worthwhile, do you know where stats can be found on central office/teacher pay ratios over the years?

14. Lorraine Says:
    January 26th, 2008 at 6:03 pm e

    I last saw it while working on the Prop A Facilities Bond a little over a year ago when I was stumping for it as a Steering Committee member. I’ll try to dig it up in my files. With things looking promising for a parcel tax to increase teacher salaries coming up for the June 2008 ballot, I know it’ll be a fact used a lot to sell it to voters and to further justify that SFUSD is responsible in its fiscal policy.

    I’ve never seen anything comparing central office stats/teacher pay ratios over the years. But I know that is exactly what everyone is specifically working to address in the parcel tax to get teachers competitive with neighboring and similar districts to retain and keep them here in SF.

15. Lorraine Says:
    January 26th, 2008 at 6:05 pm e

    Today at the SSC Summit, Myong Leigh said that cuts are being looked at across the board, central office included.

Leave a Reply